Fair Tax - Page 3

jefethegreat · 07-12-2007, 05:05 PM

Taxes are not stealing but any unavoidable tax is stealing. An income is unconstitutional and it creates a government agency that costs billions to run. It also negatively affects the economy. The best solution would be to drop the income tax and replace it with nothing, but in order to do this other federal agencies would have to be done away with also. Its really a choice between taking care of yourself or have Uncle Sam do it for you. Personally I'd choose choose the former.

Greenwave81 · 07-12-2007, 08:57 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola]Easy, tiger.

What makes it OK is that we have a tradition in this country --going back to FDR-- of the government providing a safety net for the poor at the expense of those who aren't poor. Is it an imperfect system? Yes. Should it be reformed significantly? Yes. But is it stealing? No.

That's the price of admission for being a citizen of the most prosperous country in the history of the world.[/QUOTE]

Take it easy yourself...I'm just trying to illustrate an important point. I've asked you twice now a simple question, and it's illuminating that you have still refused to answer it...

So, the country has been in existence for 230 odd yrs, and now we have a tradition because for the last 60 or so FDR and a brain dead citizenry says it's 'good', moral and ethical to take assets from some and reditribute them as the government see fit? What happened to the system of personal responsibility and reliance on charity we had for the first 170 years? You know, the system where a person's property rights were respected?

You can say it ain't stealing all you want, but you haven't yet told me why it isn't and just saying it isn't doesn't make it so...if the government tomorrow develops a public policy to euthanize all babies born prematurely or with severe genetic defects because the public doesn't want to bear the cost of care (so it was a decision reached by majority vote), does that make it 'not' killing when these unfortunates are put to death? No, it would still killing alright...but it would be government/public sanctioned killing, and according to you since it was arrived at by consensus of the governed it would be morally OK and eventually actually be a 'tradition' to boot.

The policies of FDR, no matter how noble he and those that helped enact them believed them to be are going to be the policies that tear this nation apart...it set up a system whereby any group of people could petition the government to seize other's assets/property for redress of any real/perceived adverse life situation. All you have to do now is bend the right ear, make your case to the government and voila!...instant welfare money...reduced price health care....free medicines at age 65...government housing. It's why we now have 18 million special interest groups asking the government for 'favors', money or special treatment...there's big money to be made whent he government can take whatever from whomever it wants.

If you cannot see how this breeds hate, discontent and envy amongst us all then you are being disingenuous. With benevolence/charity, the giver feels satisfaction and the receiver, gratitude. With government taking of assets the 'giver' feels angry and the receiver wonders why he ain't getting more...and the government doesn't ever ask for the 'receiver' to change his behavior to remove himself from the take.

Great system....I mean, 'tradition'.

BrooklynBound · 07-12-2007, 09:01 PM

[QUOTE=parafly]I agree that there are benefits to the fair tax system, but I still feel that the system is too vulnerable. Our ecomony is fed by consuming capitalists. A system that encourages saving rather than spending could crumble us in dire times.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we should dismiss the fair tax because of the consumption/saving debate. We are extreme consumers to a fault - we have too much CC debt and we don't save enough for our retirement. If people didn't carry bad debt and had more money to invest, we'd all be better off.

isired · 07-13-2007, 12:18 AM

[QUOTE=viermoo]Here's is something to ponder in relation to the fair tax.

How can the government ensure collection? Being that this would be the main source of tax revenue you know people would be trying to pay off the books saving 23% of the cost of the product or service.

I'm thinking, and no I'm not kidding, after the billions lost in people not charging tax and just taking cash, the government will move to do away with cash altogether. People will be forced to use a "debit" smartcard of sorts for all transactions in which the government could directly deduct the tax from your account.

Hey JCnflies,

I could see this working into end times prophesies. You know, not being allowed to buy or sell without the mark. They could just deactivate your card.[/QUOTE]there will always be evasion, but i suspect that enforcing collection of sales tax by businesses will be far easier and less 'taxing' (NPI) than enforcing income tax evasion on each and every individual. businesses have more people required to be complicit, a bigger haul that's easier to spot, and do their bidding in the public eye, in part or in whole.

isired · 07-13-2007, 12:21 AM

[QUOTE=Greenwave81]I do have to laugh a bit at the worry warts that complain that we may become a nation of 'savers'....I got news for everyone...the people making the serious jack who do the serious spending already save...they already max out their tax-deferred savings options. People make money for a reason, and while spending it is numero uno, saving it is number two.

Besides, if the fair tax initiated a nation of 'savers', it would only have short-term consequences. If people were secure in their assets, there is only so much one person can save...not to mention, without withholding of income, anyone that is a net 'income tax payer' will see a significant increase in take home pay. Let's say I save it all, or most of the increase in take home pay and retire early...well, if I'm not dead I'm going to spend it eventually.[/QUOTE]the concern is more for pulling out of slumps, whether cyclical or event-induced, when consumer confidence is low to begin with, yet spending is required to bump the economy. let's not forget that we are a capitalist nation, first and foremost, and a great deal of what makes the country 'work' is consumerism, borrowing, and spending.

like i said, i'm all for the fair tax, but it is a concern. you have to be concerned at least a little if you're thinking this through. even massive individual credit card debt, while bad for th eindividual, is not necessarily bad for the economy - the vast majority do not default outright, and almost never right away, so what they pay in interest more than compensates the 'lender' in the long run, should the individual die otherwise render the debt uncollectible.

isired · 07-13-2007, 12:38 AM

[QUOTE=rbstern]It makes the economy strong in ways that our current one is not: Foreclosures decrease. Personal bankruptcies decrease. Abuse of credit decreases. Dependency on government programs decreases.

The very things that are the largest threat to the current economy (overextended credit, decling credit and currency quality for the United States) are diminished by a more savings-oriented economy.

On both a micro and macro level, saving promotes freedom of choice, rather than dependence on credit.[/QUOTE]i agree wth you on the fair tax, but i disagree with most of what you say above. as i stated above, personal, individual credit card debt is not, in general, a bad thing for the economy. the monies, as a whole, do get paid plus interest, even including defaults/bankruptcies in the mix.

as far as dependency on government programs decreasing, you'll have to explain how people that aren't being taxed at all right now, and won't be under the fair tax either, are going to get off the dole. as far as i can see, as long as there are government programs, there will be people dependent on them (and as a social left-leaner, i'm not saying we should do away with them entirely).

and it seems to me (and admittedly i'm about as far from an accountant as you can get) that while overextended credit is certainly the biggest threat to the individual financial wellbeing of millions of americans, it is hardly the largest threat to the current u.s. economy; declining credit and currency quality for the u.s. is a result of a great many things, the relative health of the nation's capitalist economy being the largest.

and while freedom of chcoice via savings is a great notion for the individual, it's certainly not a tenet of successful capitalism on a macro level.

rbstern · 07-13-2007, 02:41 AM

[QUOTE=isired]i agree wth you on the fair tax, but i disagree with most of what you say above. as i stated above, personal, individual credit card debt is not, in general, a bad thing for the economy. the monies, as a whole, do get paid plus interest, even including defaults/bankruptcies in the mix.[/quote]
They get paid when times are good. If we enter a significant downturn in the economy, you get a debt-default "trickle up" effect. Happened in 1929 and got out of hand. The current safeguards are much better, but even with them, it is possible to overload the system to the point where the U.S. gov't has no choice but to massively devalue the dollar by increasing the currency supply.

[QUOTE]as far as dependency on government programs decreasing, you'll have to explain how people that aren't being taxed at all right now, and won't be under the fair tax either, are going to get off the dole. as far as i can see, as long as there are government programs, there will be people dependent on them (and as a social left-leaner, i'm not saying we should do away with them entirely).[/QUOTE]
If people have more savings, they are more self-sufficient. They have choices when bad things happen. They don't immediately turn to government for a bail out.
[QUOTE]and it seems to me (and admittedly i'm about as far from an accountant as you can get) that while overextended credit is certainly the biggest threat to the individual financial wellbeing of millions of americans, it is hardly the largest threat to the current u.s. economy; declining credit and currency quality for the u.s. is a result of a great many things, the relative health of the nation's capitalist economy being the largest.[/QUOTE]
It's all very heavily connected. Banks are suffering right now because they have extended easy credit to folks who can't afford it. If enough people don't pay, banks struggle. And this impacts the credit rates and money supply, which in turn, impacts things like interest rates on public securities, such as bonds and treasury notes.

[QUOTE]and while freedom of chcoice via savings is a great notion for the individual, it's certainly not a tenet of successful capitalism on a macro level.[/QUOTE]
It's about balance. While consumption is good for growth, consumption beyond means to pay is self-destructive. Witness the never ending U.S. budget deficit. Someday, the bill comes due. And it will bring pain at an enormous level.

We need to change the way we operate. We need transparency in the tax system, so we can hold the politicians accountable for their choices. We need to understand just how much we pay, and be able to decide, with clarity, when it is too much or too little. And we need to be self-sufficient. Having assets makes people self-sufficient.

And, the privacy of keeping your earnings to yourself, rather than being compelled to share the information with government...goes right to the very issues of privacy envisioned by the founders. They'd faint if they were alive today to see a form 1040 and the questions asked. They die all over again if they saw the tax code and the burden placed on Americans to comply with it.

It's shameful.

PlumberKhan · 07-13-2007, 07:39 AM

[QUOTE=jefethegreat]Taxes are not stealing but [B]any unavoidable tax is stealing[/B]...[/QUOTE]

The government simply cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. They have no incentive to, being that no matter how irresponsible they are with money...they are guaranteed to get more and more year after year.

And simply kicking abusers out of office and "replacing" them with people whom we think will spend it more wisely is just not realistic. The Federal government is far too large and unwieldy to correct the abuses of the system with an election. And many times, no matter how down to earth and fiscally responsible a candidate may appear, once in office people ingrained in the bureaucratic systems of government will eventually corrupt fair minded candidates.

Welfare is a gross misuse of my tax dollars. We don't need a system to help "poor" people. We already have one. It's called getting up off your a** and getting a f*cking job. Free market capitalism is a "help the poor" system. Giving handouts to lazy people give them no incentive to correct their lives. Cut the apron strings and they just might start becoming productive citizens.

Aside from law enforcement, everything the government does infrastructure-wise can be done more efficiently by private companies. Take roads for example. Have you seen any of them lately? They are crap. Patch patch patch. Why? Because no matter how bad or inefficiently they maintain them, they are guaranteed to have a large budget to squander the next year. Why bother trying to run an efficient highway department?

jefethegreat · 07-13-2007, 11:17 AM

We have so many taxes without the FEDERAL income tax that there is no need for it. Your property tax pays for schools and law enforcement. Your gas tax pays for roads. The corporate income tax, which is legal by the constitution, (unlike the Federal Income tax) is roughly the defense budget. The only thing the Federal Income tax does is pay off interest to the Federal Reserve. The IRS and Federal Reserve were created in the same year, 1913. The IRS is only need because of the Federal Reserve and the interest it makes the Federal gov. pay. You, the citizen get NO services from the IRS.

parafly · 07-13-2007, 11:42 AM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]I don't think we should dismiss the fair tax because of the consumption/saving debate. We are extreme consumers to a fault - we have too much CC debt and we don't save enough for our retirement. If people didn't carry bad debt and had more money to invest, we'd all be better off.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you there. Most people in general are irresponsible with their finances and do a poor job of setting themselves up for a financially prosperous life.

However, what makes you think that giving the general population their full incomes would change this irresponsibility? Just because you take an income tax away does not necessarily mean that CC balances would go down and more savings would be made for retirement. It's wishful thinking IMO. When it comes to money, some people just don't get it. The more money they have, the more money they waste.

Greenwave81 · 07-13-2007, 02:45 PM

[QUOTE=isired]the concern is more for pulling out of slumps, whether cyclical or event-induced, when consumer confidence is low to begin with, yet spending is required to bump the economy. let's not forget that we are a capitalist nation, first and foremost, and a great deal of what makes the country 'work' is consumerism, borrowing, and spending.

like i said, i'm all for the fair tax, but it is a concern. you have to be concerned at least a little if you're thinking this through. even massive individual credit card debt, while bad for th eindividual, is not necessarily bad for the economy - the vast majority do not default outright, and almost never right away, so what they pay in interest more than compensates the 'lender' in the long run, should the individual die otherwise render the debt uncollectible.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't quite understand your point...

I suppose you mean that you are afraid that with the 23% sales tax people would be less willing to buy things; but remember that for most people their take home pay is going to be significantly higher...if it's all proportional (i.e the rate of tax and the increase in take home pay), why would people react differently than they do now to an economic downturn?

BrooklynBound · 07-13-2007, 06:04 PM

[QUOTE=isired]the concern is more for pulling out of slumps, whether cyclical or event-induced, when consumer confidence is low to begin with, yet spending is required to bump the economy. let's not forget that we are a capitalist nation, first and foremost, and a great deal of what makes the country 'work' is consumerism, borrowing, and spending.

like i said, i'm all for the fair tax, but it is a concern. you have to be concerned at least a little if you're thinking this through. even massive individual credit card debt, while bad for th eindividual, is not necessarily bad for the economy - the vast majority do not default outright, and almost never right away, so what they pay in interest more than compensates the 'lender' in the long run, should the individual die otherwise render the debt uncollectible.[/QUOTE]
those that carry CC debt may not always default, but they certainly aren't saving for retirement or other big future expenses. who will pay for their retirement? the taxpayers will - and the growth on these payments is dwarfed the growth of someone who invests in 401Ks/IRAs

we would certainly be better off if people didn't carry CC balances and saved more of their income.

BrooklynBound · 07-13-2007, 06:08 PM

[QUOTE=parafly]I agree with you there. Most people in general are irresponsible with their finances and do a poor job of setting themselves up for a financially prosperous life.

However, what makes you think that giving the general population their full incomes would change this irresponsibility? Just because you take an income tax away does not necessarily mean that CC balances would go down and more savings would be made for retirement. It's wishful thinking IMO. When it comes to money, some people just don't get it. The more money they have, the more money they waste.[/QUOTE]
well, i don't think we should stop people from having more money in their pockets because they might waste it. foolish people will be careless with their money, sensible people will use money wisely. i'd rather have the option to do manage more of money than having the gov't mismanage it.

BrooklynBound · 07-13-2007, 06:09 PM

[QUOTE=jefethegreat]We have so many taxes without the FEDERAL income tax that there is no need for it. Your property tax pays for schools and law enforcement. Your gas tax pays for roads. The corporate income tax, which is legal by the constitution, (unlike the Federal Income tax) is roughly the defense budget. The only thing the Federal Income tax does is pay off interest to the Federal Reserve. The IRS and Federal Reserve were created in the same year, 1913. The IRS is only need because of the Federal Reserve and the interest it makes the Federal gov. pay. You, the citizen get NO services from the IRS.[/QUOTE]
i totally agree. and guess what i do for a living? i'm an accountant.

if there's anyone in the world who has more to gain from the complex tax code, it's people in my field. and i will still tell you it's BS. it exists purely to hide favors for special interest groups and to provide jobs to CPAs and the IRS. what does that tell you?

BrooklynBound · 07-13-2007, 06:11 PM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]The government simply cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. They have no incentive to, being that no matter how irresponsible they are with money...they are guaranteed to get more and more year after year.

And simply kicking abusers out of office and "replacing" them with people whom we think will spend it more wisely is just not realistic. The Federal government is far too large and unwieldy to correct the abuses of the system with an election. And many times, no matter how down to earth and fiscally responsible a candidate may appear, once in office people ingrained in the bureaucratic systems of government will eventually corrupt fair minded candidates.

Welfare is a gross misuse of my tax dollars. We don't need a system to help "poor" people. We already have one. It's called getting up off your a** and getting a f*cking job. Free market capitalism is a "help the poor" system. Giving handouts to lazy people give them no incentive to correct their lives. Cut the apron strings and they just might start becoming productive citizens.

Aside from law enforcement, everything the government does infrastructure-wise can be done more efficiently by private companies. Take roads for example. Have you seen any of them lately? They are crap. Patch patch patch. Why? Because no matter how bad or inefficiently they maintain them, they are guaranteed to have a large budget to squander the next year. Why bother trying to run an efficient highway department?[/QUOTE]i love how some people call you a liberal because you criticize Bush and then you make posts like this. too many partisan hacks on this board. (i'm a conservative who can't vote for republicans anymore)

Greenwave81 · 07-13-2007, 07:17 PM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]i love how some people call you a liberal because you criticize Bush and then you make posts like this. too many partisan hacks on this board. (i'm a conservative who can't vote for republicans anymore)[/QUOTE]

When I first read one of 'Khan's replies, I thought he was a dyed in the wool lib...I made that mistake when I first started posting here because it seemed everyone was either a flaming Dem or Flaming Repub...no one in between.

BTW, I'm a conservative that can't vote for Republicans anymore either.

PlumberKhan · 07-13-2007, 07:58 PM

[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]i love how some people call you a liberal because you criticize Bush and then you make posts like this. too many partisan hacks on this board. (i'm a conservative who can't vote for republicans anymore)[/QUOTE]

I'm a liberapublican.

What party is there for somebody who is pro-gun, anti-war, who could give a sh*t whether or not homos get hitched, thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't have a uterus so really can't relate, hates taxes and welfare programs, wants government to be smaller and smaller, loves the environment, believes in church/state separation, doesn't believe in affirmative action, doesn't believe in the death penalty and wants marijuana legalized?

BrooklynBound · 07-13-2007, 08:16 PM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I'm a liberapublican.

What party is there for somebody who is pro-gun, anti-war, who could give a sh*t whether or not homos get hitched, thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't have a uterus so really can't relate, hates taxes and welfare programs, wants government to be smaller and smaller, loves the environment, believes in church/state separation, doesn't believe in affirmative action, doesn't believe in the death penalty and wants marijuana legalized?[/QUOTE]
i'm sure we disagree on something, but you nailed everything in this poist

CanadaSteve · 07-13-2007, 08:38 PM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]T
Welfare is a gross misuse of my tax dollars. We don't need a system to help "poor" people. We already have one. It's called getting up off your a** and getting a f*cking job. Free market capitalism is a "help the poor" system. Giving handouts to lazy people give them no incentive to correct their lives. Cut the apron strings and they just might start becoming productive citizens.

[/QUOTE]

I am not a believer of the welfare system either, unless we are talking about helping those that truly cannot help themselves, such as people who are crippled and cannot work, those with severe mental disabilities, etc...

But if you can work, you should....plain and simple.

This does raise another concern though...I am a firm believer in charity, as long as someone is doing something to earn it. But I also believe that one of our goals ought to ensure as a right of all people, the ability to have enough food, water and a place to live. If we take that on collectively, I honestly think you would see a great deal of crime go down. As long as people's basic needs are met, I think things would be better off. But yes, while I think money would be better directed to ensuring this, I still think if people are capable of working, they must.

jefethegreat · 07-13-2007, 08:54 PM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I'm a liberapublican.

What party is there for somebody who is pro-gun, anti-war, who could give a sh*t whether or not homos get hitched, thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't have a uterus so really can't relate, hates taxes and welfare programs, wants government to be smaller and smaller, loves the environment, believes in church/state separation, doesn't believe in affirmative action, doesn't believe in the death penalty and wants marijuana legalized?[/QUOTE]

Wow I agree with everything there too...I bet there are a lot Americans who agree with this.

07-13-2007, 12:21 AM	#45
isired Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: nyc Posts: 11,156	[QUOTE=Greenwave81]I do have to laugh a bit at the worry warts that complain that we may become a nation of 'savers'....I got news for everyone...the people making the serious jack who do the serious spending already save...they already max out their tax-deferred savings options. People make money for a reason, and while spending it is numero uno, saving it is number two. Besides, if the fair tax initiated a nation of 'savers', it would only have short-term consequences. If people were secure in their assets, there is only so much one person can save...not to mention, without withholding of income, anyone that is a net 'income tax payer' will see a significant increase in take home pay. Let's say I save it all, or most of the increase in take home pay and retire early...well, if I'm not dead I'm going to spend it eventually.[/QUOTE]the concern is more for pulling out of slumps, whether cyclical or event-induced, when consumer confidence is low to begin with, yet spending is required to bump the economy. let's not forget that we are a capitalist nation, first and foremost, and a great deal of what makes the country 'work' is consumerism, borrowing, and spending. like i said, i'm all for the fair tax, but it is a concern. you have to be concerned at least a little if you're thinking this through. even massive individual credit card debt, while bad for th eindividual, is not necessarily bad for the economy - the vast majority do not default outright, and almost never right away, so what they pay in interest more than compensates the 'lender' in the long run, should the individual die otherwise render the debt uncollectible. Last edited by isired; 07-13-2007 at 12:25 AM.

07-12-2007, 05:05 PM	#41
jefethegreat lovin' America Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 848	Taxes are not stealing but any unavoidable tax is stealing. An income is unconstitutional and it creates a government agency that costs billions to run. It also negatively affects the economy. The best solution would be to drop the income tax and replace it with nothing, but in order to do this other federal agencies would have to be done away with also. Its really a choice between taking care of yourself or have Uncle Sam do it for you. Personally I'd choose choose the former.

07-12-2007, 08:57 PM	#42
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,883	[QUOTE=nuu faaola]Easy, tiger. What makes it OK is that we have a tradition in this country --going back to FDR-- of the government providing a safety net for the poor at the expense of those who aren't poor. Is it an imperfect system? Yes. Should it be reformed significantly? Yes. But is it stealing? No. That's the price of admission for being a citizen of the most prosperous country in the history of the world.[/QUOTE] Take it easy yourself...I'm just trying to illustrate an important point. I've asked you twice now a simple question, and it's illuminating that you have still refused to answer it... So, the country has been in existence for 230 odd yrs, and now we have a tradition because for the last 60 or so FDR and a brain dead citizenry says it's 'good', moral and ethical to take assets from some and reditribute them as the government see fit? What happened to the system of personal responsibility and reliance on charity we had for the first 170 years? You know, the system where a person's property rights were respected? You can say it ain't stealing all you want, but you haven't yet told me why it isn't and just saying it isn't doesn't make it so...if the government tomorrow develops a public policy to euthanize all babies born prematurely or with severe genetic defects because the public doesn't want to bear the cost of care (so it was a decision reached by majority vote), does that make it 'not' killing when these unfortunates are put to death? No, it would still killing alright...but it would be government/public sanctioned killing, and according to you since it was arrived at by consensus of the governed it would be morally OK and eventually actually be a 'tradition' to boot. The policies of FDR, no matter how noble he and those that helped enact them believed them to be are going to be the policies that tear this nation apart...it set up a system whereby any group of people could petition the government to seize other's assets/property for redress of any real/perceived adverse life situation. All you have to do now is bend the right ear, make your case to the government and voila!...instant welfare money...reduced price health care....free medicines at age 65...government housing. It's why we now have 18 million special interest groups asking the government for 'favors', money or special treatment...there's big money to be made whent he government can take whatever from whomever it wants. If you cannot see how this breeds hate, discontent and envy amongst us all then you are being disingenuous. With benevolence/charity, the giver feels satisfaction and the receiver, gratitude. With government taking of assets the 'giver' feels angry and the receiver wonders why he ain't getting more...and the government doesn't ever ask for the 'receiver' to change his behavior to remove himself from the take. Great system....I mean, 'tradition'.

07-12-2007, 09:01 PM	#43
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=parafly]I agree that there are benefits to the fair tax system, but I still feel that the system is too vulnerable. Our ecomony is fed by consuming capitalists. A system that encourages saving rather than spending could crumble us in dire times.[/QUOTE] I don't think we should dismiss the fair tax because of the consumption/saving debate. We are extreme consumers to a fault - we have too much CC debt and we don't save enough for our retirement. If people didn't carry bad debt and had more money to invest, we'd all be better off.

07-13-2007, 12:18 AM	#44
isired Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: nyc Posts: 11,156	[QUOTE=viermoo]Here's is something to ponder in relation to the fair tax. How can the government ensure collection? Being that this would be the main source of tax revenue you know people would be trying to pay off the books saving 23% of the cost of the product or service. I'm thinking, and no I'm not kidding, after the billions lost in people not charging tax and just taking cash, the government will move to do away with cash altogether. People will be forced to use a "debit" smartcard of sorts for all transactions in which the government could directly deduct the tax from your account. Hey JCnflies, I could see this working into end times prophesies. You know, not being allowed to buy or sell without the mark. They could just deactivate your card.[/QUOTE]there will always be evasion, but i suspect that enforcing collection of sales tax by businesses will be far easier and less 'taxing' (NPI) than enforcing income tax evasion on each and every individual. businesses have more people required to be complicit, a bigger haul that's easier to spot, and do their bidding in the public eye, in part or in whole.

07-13-2007, 12:38 AM	#46
isired Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: nyc Posts: 11,156	[QUOTE=rbstern]It makes the economy strong in ways that our current one is not: Foreclosures decrease. Personal bankruptcies decrease. Abuse of credit decreases. Dependency on government programs decreases. The very things that are the largest threat to the current economy (overextended credit, decling credit and currency quality for the United States) are diminished by a more savings-oriented economy. On both a micro and macro level, saving promotes freedom of choice, rather than dependence on credit.[/QUOTE]i agree wth you on the fair tax, but i disagree with most of what you say above. as i stated above, personal, individual credit card debt is not, in general, a bad thing for the economy. the monies, as a whole, do get paid plus interest, even including defaults/bankruptcies in the mix. as far as dependency on government programs decreasing, you'll have to explain how people that aren't being taxed at all right now, and won't be under the fair tax either, are going to get off the dole. as far as i can see, as long as there are government programs, there will be people dependent on them (and as a social left-leaner, i'm not saying we should do away with them entirely). and it seems to me (and admittedly i'm about as far from an accountant as you can get) that while overextended credit is certainly the biggest threat to the individual financial wellbeing of millions of americans, it is hardly the largest threat to the current u.s. economy; declining credit and currency quality for the u.s. is a result of a great many things, the relative health of the nation's capitalist economy being the largest. and while freedom of chcoice via savings is a great notion for the individual, it's certainly not a tenet of successful capitalism on a macro level.

07-13-2007, 02:41 AM	#47
rbstern Board Administrator Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,549	[QUOTE=isired]i agree wth you on the fair tax, but i disagree with most of what you say above. as i stated above, personal, individual credit card debt is not, in general, a bad thing for the economy. the monies, as a whole, do get paid plus interest, even including defaults/bankruptcies in the mix.[/quote] They get paid when times are good. If we enter a significant downturn in the economy, you get a debt-default "trickle up" effect. Happened in 1929 and got out of hand. The current safeguards are much better, but even with them, it is possible to overload the system to the point where the U.S. gov't has no choice but to massively devalue the dollar by increasing the currency supply. [QUOTE]as far as dependency on government programs decreasing, you'll have to explain how people that aren't being taxed at all right now, and won't be under the fair tax either, are going to get off the dole. as far as i can see, as long as there are government programs, there will be people dependent on them (and as a social left-leaner, i'm not saying we should do away with them entirely).[/QUOTE] If people have more savings, they are more self-sufficient. They have choices when bad things happen. They don't immediately turn to government for a bail out. [QUOTE]and it seems to me (and admittedly i'm about as far from an accountant as you can get) that while overextended credit is certainly the biggest threat to the individual financial wellbeing of millions of americans, it is hardly the largest threat to the current u.s. economy; declining credit and currency quality for the u.s. is a result of a great many things, the relative health of the nation's capitalist economy being the largest.[/QUOTE] It's all very heavily connected. Banks are suffering right now because they have extended easy credit to folks who can't afford it. If enough people don't pay, banks struggle. And this impacts the credit rates and money supply, which in turn, impacts things like interest rates on public securities, such as bonds and treasury notes. [QUOTE]and while freedom of chcoice via savings is a great notion for the individual, it's certainly not a tenet of successful capitalism on a macro level.[/QUOTE] It's about balance. While consumption is good for growth, consumption beyond means to pay is self-destructive. Witness the never ending U.S. budget deficit. Someday, the bill comes due. And it will bring pain at an enormous level. We need to change the way we operate. We need transparency in the tax system, so we can hold the politicians accountable for their choices. We need to understand just how much we pay, and be able to decide, with clarity, when it is too much or too little. And we need to be self-sufficient. Having assets makes people self-sufficient. And, the privacy of keeping your earnings to yourself, rather than being compelled to share the information with government...goes right to the very issues of privacy envisioned by the founders. They'd faint if they were alive today to see a form 1040 and the questions asked. They die all over again if they saw the tax code and the burden placed on Americans to comply with it. It's shameful.

07-13-2007, 07:39 AM	#48
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,016	[QUOTE=jefethegreat]Taxes are not stealing but [B]any unavoidable tax is stealing[/B]...[/QUOTE] The government simply cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. They have no incentive to, being that no matter how irresponsible they are with money...they are guaranteed to get more and more year after year. And simply kicking abusers out of office and "replacing" them with people whom we think will spend it more wisely is just not realistic. The Federal government is far too large and unwieldy to correct the abuses of the system with an election. And many times, no matter how down to earth and fiscally responsible a candidate may appear, once in office people ingrained in the bureaucratic systems of government will eventually corrupt fair minded candidates. Welfare is a gross misuse of my tax dollars. We don't need a system to help "poor" people. We already have one. It's called getting up off your a** and getting a f*cking job. Free market capitalism is a "help the poor" system. Giving handouts to lazy people give them no incentive to correct their lives. Cut the apron strings and they just might start becoming productive citizens. Aside from law enforcement, everything the government does infrastructure-wise can be done more efficiently by private companies. Take roads for example. Have you seen any of them lately? They are crap. Patch patch patch. Why? Because no matter how bad or inefficiently they maintain them, they are guaranteed to have a large budget to squander the next year. Why bother trying to run an efficient highway department?

07-13-2007, 11:17 AM	#49
jefethegreat lovin' America Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 848	We have so many taxes without the FEDERAL income tax that there is no need for it. Your property tax pays for schools and law enforcement. Your gas tax pays for roads. The corporate income tax, which is legal by the constitution, (unlike the Federal Income tax) is roughly the defense budget. The only thing the Federal Income tax does is pay off interest to the Federal Reserve. The IRS and Federal Reserve were created in the same year, 1913. The IRS is only need because of the Federal Reserve and the interest it makes the Federal gov. pay. You, the citizen get NO services from the IRS.

07-13-2007, 11:42 AM	#50
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,300	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]I don't think we should dismiss the fair tax because of the consumption/saving debate. We are extreme consumers to a fault - we have too much CC debt and we don't save enough for our retirement. If people didn't carry bad debt and had more money to invest, we'd all be better off.[/QUOTE] I agree with you there. Most people in general are irresponsible with their finances and do a poor job of setting themselves up for a financially prosperous life. However, what makes you think that giving the general population their full incomes would change this irresponsibility? Just because you take an income tax away does not necessarily mean that CC balances would go down and more savings would be made for retirement. It's wishful thinking IMO. When it comes to money, some people just don't get it. The more money they have, the more money they waste.

07-13-2007, 02:45 PM	#51
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,883	[QUOTE=isired]the concern is more for pulling out of slumps, whether cyclical or event-induced, when consumer confidence is low to begin with, yet spending is required to bump the economy. let's not forget that we are a capitalist nation, first and foremost, and a great deal of what makes the country 'work' is consumerism, borrowing, and spending. like i said, i'm all for the fair tax, but it is a concern. you have to be concerned at least a little if you're thinking this through. even massive individual credit card debt, while bad for th eindividual, is not necessarily bad for the economy - the vast majority do not default outright, and almost never right away, so what they pay in interest more than compensates the 'lender' in the long run, should the individual die otherwise render the debt uncollectible.[/QUOTE] Well, I don't quite understand your point... I suppose you mean that you are afraid that with the 23% sales tax people would be less willing to buy things; but remember that for most people their take home pay is going to be significantly higher...if it's all proportional (i.e the rate of tax and the increase in take home pay), why would people react differently than they do now to an economic downturn?

07-13-2007, 06:04 PM	#52
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=isired]the concern is more for pulling out of slumps, whether cyclical or event-induced, when consumer confidence is low to begin with, yet spending is required to bump the economy. let's not forget that we are a capitalist nation, first and foremost, and a great deal of what makes the country 'work' is consumerism, borrowing, and spending. like i said, i'm all for the fair tax, but it is a concern. you have to be concerned at least a little if you're thinking this through. even massive individual credit card debt, while bad for th eindividual, is not necessarily bad for the economy - the vast majority do not default outright, and almost never right away, so what they pay in interest more than compensates the 'lender' in the long run, should the individual die otherwise render the debt uncollectible.[/QUOTE] those that carry CC debt may not always default, but they certainly aren't saving for retirement or other big future expenses. who will pay for their retirement? the taxpayers will - and the growth on these payments is dwarfed the growth of someone who invests in 401Ks/IRAs we would certainly be better off if people didn't carry CC balances and saved more of their income.

07-13-2007, 06:08 PM	#53
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=parafly]I agree with you there. Most people in general are irresponsible with their finances and do a poor job of setting themselves up for a financially prosperous life. However, what makes you think that giving the general population their full incomes would change this irresponsibility? Just because you take an income tax away does not necessarily mean that CC balances would go down and more savings would be made for retirement. It's wishful thinking IMO. When it comes to money, some people just don't get it. The more money they have, the more money they waste.[/QUOTE] well, i don't think we should stop people from having more money in their pockets because they might waste it. foolish people will be careless with their money, sensible people will use money wisely. i'd rather have the option to do manage more of money than having the gov't mismanage it.

07-13-2007, 06:09 PM	#54
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=jefethegreat]We have so many taxes without the FEDERAL income tax that there is no need for it. Your property tax pays for schools and law enforcement. Your gas tax pays for roads. The corporate income tax, which is legal by the constitution, (unlike the Federal Income tax) is roughly the defense budget. The only thing the Federal Income tax does is pay off interest to the Federal Reserve. The IRS and Federal Reserve were created in the same year, 1913. The IRS is only need because of the Federal Reserve and the interest it makes the Federal gov. pay. You, the citizen get NO services from the IRS.[/QUOTE] i totally agree. and guess what i do for a living? i'm an accountant. if there's anyone in the world who has more to gain from the complex tax code, it's people in my field. and i will still tell you it's BS. it exists purely to hide favors for special interest groups and to provide jobs to CPAs and the IRS. what does that tell you?

07-13-2007, 06:11 PM	#55
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]The government simply cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. They have no incentive to, being that no matter how irresponsible they are with money...they are guaranteed to get more and more year after year. And simply kicking abusers out of office and "replacing" them with people whom we think will spend it more wisely is just not realistic. The Federal government is far too large and unwieldy to correct the abuses of the system with an election. And many times, no matter how down to earth and fiscally responsible a candidate may appear, once in office people ingrained in the bureaucratic systems of government will eventually corrupt fair minded candidates. Welfare is a gross misuse of my tax dollars. We don't need a system to help "poor" people. We already have one. It's called getting up off your a** and getting a f*cking job. Free market capitalism is a "help the poor" system. Giving handouts to lazy people give them no incentive to correct their lives. Cut the apron strings and they just might start becoming productive citizens. Aside from law enforcement, everything the government does infrastructure-wise can be done more efficiently by private companies. Take roads for example. Have you seen any of them lately? They are crap. Patch patch patch. Why? Because no matter how bad or inefficiently they maintain them, they are guaranteed to have a large budget to squander the next year. Why bother trying to run an efficient highway department?[/QUOTE]i love how some people call you a liberal because you criticize Bush and then you make posts like this. too many partisan hacks on this board. (i'm a conservative who can't vote for republicans anymore)

07-13-2007, 07:17 PM	#56
Greenwave81 a JETS fan since '68...and I BELIEVE! All League Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Missouri Posts: 3,883	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]i love how some people call you a liberal because you criticize Bush and then you make posts like this. too many partisan hacks on this board. (i'm a conservative who can't vote for republicans anymore)[/QUOTE] When I first read one of 'Khan's replies, I thought he was a dyed in the wool lib...I made that mistake when I first started posting here because it seemed everyone was either a flaming Dem or Flaming Repub...no one in between. BTW, I'm a conservative that can't vote for Republicans anymore either.

07-13-2007, 07:58 PM	#57
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,016	[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]i love how some people call you a liberal because you criticize Bush and then you make posts like this. too many partisan hacks on this board. (i'm a conservative who can't vote for republicans anymore)[/QUOTE] I'm a liberapublican. What party is there for somebody who is pro-gun, anti-war, who could give a sh*t whether or not homos get hitched, thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't have a uterus so really can't relate, hates taxes and welfare programs, wants government to be smaller and smaller, loves the environment, believes in church/state separation, doesn't believe in affirmative action, doesn't believe in the death penalty and wants marijuana legalized?

07-13-2007, 08:16 PM	#58
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I'm a liberapublican. What party is there for somebody who is pro-gun, anti-war, who could give a sh*t whether or not homos get hitched, thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't have a uterus so really can't relate, hates taxes and welfare programs, wants government to be smaller and smaller, loves the environment, believes in church/state separation, doesn't believe in affirmative action, doesn't believe in the death penalty and wants marijuana legalized?[/QUOTE] i'm sure we disagree on something, but you nailed everything in this poist

07-13-2007, 08:38 PM	#59
CanadaSteve Liked the draft picks....meat and potatoes. All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 6,514	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]T Welfare is a gross misuse of my tax dollars. We don't need a system to help "poor" people. We already have one. It's called getting up off your a** and getting a f*cking job. Free market capitalism is a "help the poor" system. Giving handouts to lazy people give them no incentive to correct their lives. Cut the apron strings and they just might start becoming productive citizens. [/QUOTE] I am not a believer of the welfare system either, unless we are talking about helping those that truly cannot help themselves, such as people who are crippled and cannot work, those with severe mental disabilities, etc... But if you can work, you should....plain and simple. This does raise another concern though...I am a firm believer in charity, as long as someone is doing something to earn it. But I also believe that one of our goals ought to ensure as a right of all people, the ability to have enough food, water and a place to live. If we take that on collectively, I honestly think you would see a great deal of crime go down. As long as people's basic needs are met, I think things would be better off. But yes, while I think money would be better directed to ensuring this, I still think if people are capable of working, they must.

07-13-2007, 08:54 PM	#60
jefethegreat lovin' America Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 848	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]I'm a liberapublican. What party is there for somebody who is pro-gun, anti-war, who could give a sh*t whether or not homos get hitched, thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't have a uterus so really can't relate, hates taxes and welfare programs, wants government to be smaller and smaller, loves the environment, believes in church/state separation, doesn't believe in affirmative action, doesn't believe in the death penalty and wants marijuana legalized?[/QUOTE] Wow I agree with everything there too...I bet there are a lot Americans who agree with this.